Someone has leaked internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a …

Update: The Heartland Institute has acknowledged that some of the documents were theirs, but claims that a strategy document is fraudulent. Although other sources indicate that the Heartland is preparing an educational program, none speak to the motivation behind this program.

The scientific findings relevant to climate change generally appear in journals that the public will never look at. Instead, the public battle over the science and its policy implications often boils down to a battle between scientific societies like the AAAS and National Academies of Science and think tanks like the Cato Institute and Heartland Institute, which contest the scientific consensus. The Heartland has even set up a contrarian counterpart to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called the NIPCC (for "nongovernmental" and "international," naturally).

Yesterday, a series of documents that allegedly originated form the Heartland were leaked to a prominent climate blog. The documents reveal that most of the funding for its climate activities come from a small range of very generous donors, and that big plans are afoot for 2012. If the Heartland has its way, it will fund the launch of a new website by meteorologist and climate skeptic Anthony Watts, and prepare a school curriculum intended to keep teachers from addressing climate science.

The documents include a detailed financial statement, which lists all the sources of income. The Heartland is generally antiregulatory (issues its tackled in the past include everything from smoking laws to telecom regulations), and its list of small donors reflects that. Time Warner Cable and AT&T both show up, as does Microsoft. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies also make appearances, along with the Koch brothers and GM. Combined, these large donors ($10,000 or more) provided about three-quarters of the Heartland's $4.5 million budget last year. A single anonymous donor provided about another $1 million.

A glance through the documents (their authenticity has yet to be confirmed; see below), however, quickly reveals that this broad range of donors isn't involved in the Heartland's climate activities. The NIPCC reports, for example, consume about $300,000 a year, but all of that comes from two donors. Half of the cost of Watts' new website (which is rather pricey, at $88,000) comes from a single donor. Another donor has pledged $100,000 towards the school curriculum project.

The content of Watts' next project isn't made clear in the document (his current website is still focused on arguing about the accuracy of the temperature record long after the issues have been reanalyzed to death). But the description of the project that will target public schools is striking.

UPDATE: The following two paragraphs regarding the education strategy are based on a document that the Heartland Institute says is fraudulent.

After complaining that "Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective," the document indicates that the $100,000 will go to David Wojick, an engineer with a PhD in the philosophy of science. Wojick will be funded to address "the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn’t alarmist or overtly political." To that end, he'll produce a set of modules that explicitly borrows the "teach the controversy" strategy, with each module dedicated to terming different aspects of climate change controversial—humanity's involvement, the accuracy of climate models, the role of CO2 as a pollutant, etc.

This strategy is just as cynical as it sounds. Most of these topics aren't scientific controversies, and one document explicitly notes that the modules aren't focused on enabling teachers to handle climate science better; instead, Heartland hopes to dissuade them from teaching it at all. "Effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain—two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."

Wojick isn't the only individual who will be paid well for his role in contesting climate science. Craig Idso, a former coal lobbyist who now helps manage the NIPCC, is getting $11,600 per month for doing so. Fred Singer, a former scientist who often writes editorials that contest the scientific consensus, gets $5,000 a month. A number of others, some still in academia, receive smaller amounts.

UPDATE: the following paragraph is based on information from a document that the Heartland claims is a forgery.

Heartland also claims to be able to mobilize less-formal means of contesting the scientific community. It says it coordinates its work with Watts, along with "other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts." It has also used Forbes blogs (one of its senior fellows has a regular column there) to get its message out. However, its love affair with Forbes is apparently on the rocks, since, " they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as [The Pacific Institute's Peter] Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own."

Some of these documents are focused on fundraising, and thus might be the product of a bit of wishful thinking. Still, they make the Institute's strategic vision pretty clear, and many of the fundraising details and payments are required as part of tax documents. The most significant question is whether their entire content is authentic.

Many of the extensive details are so mundane that there's little doubt that the leaked documents were based on legitimate ones. The only question is whether some of the text within them has been modified prior to the leak. The Heartland Institute hasn't yet commented publicly on the documents' authenticity, nor has its communications director returned our calls.

I really have to wonder about the long term goals of the people behind these organizations. What part of "the current course cannot be sustained" do they not comprehend? Is it simply a matter of believing that the ramifications of our current policies will come to bear after they're dead and gone? Hey thanks you selfish bastards, I'd hate for you to have to survive on the meager massive amounts of wealth you currently possess rather than amassing yet more. You know, because infinity x 2 is better than infinity.

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

I doubt they will; they seem like scumbags. I had the 'pleasure' of arguing with Chris Horner once, and all he did was move the goalposts, mislead with figures about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and redirect to partisan politics (must've ad-hom'd Al Gore 150 times).

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

I really have to wonder about the long term goals of the people behind these organizations. What part of "the current course cannot be sustained" do they not comprehend? Is it simply a matter of believing that the ramifications of our current policies will come to bear after they're dead and gone? Hey thanks you selfish bastards, I'd hate for you to have to survive on the meager massive amounts of wealth you currently possess rather than amassing yet more. You know, because infinity x 2 is better than infinity.

It's just a delaying tactic, to give them more time to rake in the big bugs unregulated.

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

If you're implying that the scientists are in it for the money, you really have no idea what makes scientists tick.

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

If you're implying that the scientists are in it for the money, you really have no idea what makes scientists tick.

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

I appreciate that you made a pretty reasonable post, but it does seem to imply the ongoing myth of climate scientists raking in the dosh in some kind of calculated scheme between them all. While it would be great to see the figures (although nobody demands to see physicists tax returns to be sure they aren't making up the Standard Theory) I would be willing to bet that not many climatologists make $11k a month...

I really have to wonder about the long term goals of the people behind these organizations. What part of "the current course cannot be sustained" do they not comprehend? Is it simply a matter of believing that the ramifications of our current policies will come to bear after they're dead and gone?

I suspect it's a combination of wilful ignorance of inconvenient information (humans are really good at this in general), combined with the fact that they have sufficient money that they believe they can ride out any ramifications.

Basically a tragedy of the commons situation where the rich have decided that since everyone will suffer eventually, they may as well be on the side that reaps the benefits today rather than the side that doesn't even get that.

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

If you're implying that the scientists are in it for the money, you really have no idea what makes scientists tick.

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

Except the money on the climatology side largely comes from broader education funds. There's nothing in e.g. the NSF granting process to suggest that cash goes to predetermined conclusions (which wouldn't really be science anyway). It's extremely difficult to even say science journals are biased, when organizations from every related field across the world generally agree that AGW is real.

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

This is indeed the most disturbing part. They don't think the science is genuinely controversial, because they know where the science lies. Global warming denial isn't science, any more than creationism is science. So they borrow the "teach the controversy" techniques to make sure that the science isn't taught in the first place. They are blatantly stating a preference for ignorance over knowledge.

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

If you're implying that the scientists are in it for the money, you really have no idea what makes scientists tick.

Scientists are people, just as subject to faults, foibles, and weaknesses as non-scientists. If you really believe that there aren't any of them grubbing for grant money and lab space, you really need to get out more.

NOTE: This happens on both sides. There are undoubtedly people on the "warmist" side who are making money off it, just as there are those on the "denier" side doing the same. People are people.

^^^ I couldn't look past the graphic on that article. It's so blatantly manipulative that I can't believe they actually ran with it. "Global Warming is a long term trend, so to hide that we're going to show you a very short section of the graph where the trend is hidden in the noise, are you not convinced yet?"

theJonTech wrote:

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

Nobody gets into science for the money. Unless apparently they're climate deniers if this article is true. Most basic science is done on a shoestring budget by people who are passionate about the work. If your goal in life is to make a lot of money, you go into investment banking or something, not drilling for ice cores in Antarctica.

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

If you're implying that the scientists are in it for the money, you really have no idea what makes scientists tick.

This quotation from Heartland just staggers me: "two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science." Oh, yay, now everybody talking about the importance of STEM know where to look when they wonder why science isn't taken seriously in school: well-endowed think tanks are pouring tons of money into making sure it isn't in schools at all.

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

I appreciate that you made a pretty reasonable post, but it does seem to imply the ongoing myth of climate scientists raking in the dosh in some kind of calculated scheme between them all. While it would be great to see the figures (although nobody demands to see physicists tax returns to be sure they aren't making up the Standard Theory) I would be willing to bet that not many climatologists make $11k a month...

There are most certainly some genuine scientists that love their work. However, like all things man, its turned into a business, and a very healthy one at that.

There are some folks who love science, that is their passion, then there are others who just want a paycheck.

Awesome, grabbing the popcorn for what promises to be yet another great climate change thread on Ars. Sitting back to watch all the posters, registered today, bitch about how Ars is biased towards the climate change believers, and, ignoring the evidence provided in the article, claiming that the proponents are all about making money. Because, you know it's such a lucrative position to argue in favor of climate change, joining the thousands of other scientists saying the same thing. Compared to being a denier, where you can cozy on up to the cash spigot provided by various wealthy donors, and occupied by very few other people.

^^^ I couldn't look past the graphic on that article. It's so blatantly manipulative that I can't believe they actually ran with it. "Global Warming is a long term trend, so to hide that we're going to show you a very short section of the graph where the trend is hidden in the noise, are you not convinced yet?"

theJonTech wrote:

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

Nobody gets into science for the money. Unless apparently they're climate deniers if this article is true. Most basic science is done on a shoestring budget by people who are passionate about the work. If your goal in life is to make a lot of money, you go into investment banking or something, not drilling for ice cores in Antarctica.

Not all science is money. But there is certainly money to be made. Weapons, pharmaceuticals, climate research is all big business now. The average scientist may not make money, but many are making quite the career.

I really don't understand what makes the scientists tick.Teaching science on both sides is valid... but persuading not to teach a perspective is just head in the sand.

You're right; you really don't understand science.

Pro-tip: in Science, a perspective is only valid if there is evidence behind it. You can say whatever you want. But it doesn't become science unless you can back it up with some actual data. And if the other guy has more, better, more comprehensive, and more accurate data, then you lose. Unless you come up with something that puts holes in his data.

Science is not a democracy.

That's how science works.

Teaching science works like this: you teach what is currently known. Not what "might" be. You don't teach String Theory in physics, because there isn't enough evidence for it yet. You don't teach stuff with minimal evidential backing in science class, because that will only confuse people and make them thing that the alternative idea is in some way comparable. And you absolutely don't teach non-science or scientific denial in science class!

theJonTech wrote:

jandrese wrote:

^^^ I couldn't look past the graphic on that article. It's so blatantly manipulative that I can't believe they actually ran with it. "Global Warming is a long term trend, so to hide that we're going to show you a very short section of the graph where the trend is hidden in the noise, are you not convinced yet?"

theJonTech wrote:

Problem is there is money poured in on all sides. This is a business, a very large international business. Many folks are making money

Nobody gets into science for the money. Unless apparently they're climate deniers if this article is true. Most basic science is done on a shoestring budget by people who are passionate about the work. If your goal in life is to make a lot of money, you go into investment banking or something, not drilling for ice cores in Antarctica.

Not all science is money. But there is certainly money to be made. Weapons, pharmaceuticals, climate research is all big business now. The average scientist may not make money, but many are making quite the career.

Heartland is a think tank. The job of think tanks is to provide "experts" that always argue one side of an issue regardless of standing.

For instance, if you are a business opposed to some regulation, like say the government wants to shut down the "Dutch Sandwich" method of hiding taxable income overseas to avoid paying taxes on it. You hire the American Enterprise Institute or the US Chamber of Commerce to argue against it in the media and on capital hill. They'll send experts to all of the call-in shows and panel shows and congressional hearings with studies (that they made) showing how it would hurt the poor, government tax income, or whatnot if this change happened.

They aren't particularly concerned with proper peer review, or even the truth. The #1 job of a think tank is to push an agenda through any means.

Seriously, can we nip this bullshit currently repeated by JonTech and Ragnarredbeard that Climate science and climate researchers, by and large, are fudging or shaping results * for the money *.

There must be such a ridiculously unnecessary study to show the great lie * that * is. I would be surprised if you found three such guys "livin' large and rollin' in dough" on the money to research the climate. If such a thing is found, it should get posted like a reference link just to get one other crap argument from belching forth and continuing to deflect from the larger discussion.

Oh god, yes. All one really needs to know is that they teamed up with the tobacco industry back in the 90's to fight efforts to declare second-hand smoke dangerous. Basically, they operate from the idea of starting with a belief, and then trying to massage the facts around to supporting that belief. Or, if that's impossible, run interference against the facts that run counter to their beliefs.

Heartland is a policy "think tank", which itself is sort of a masturbatory practice, but not inherently a bad thing. But in this case, they essentially sit around and think up misleading arguments against global warming, or regulation, or whatever else they're paid to argue. Then Fox put them on the air, or the Daily Mail quotes them, as some sort of authority.

If those media outlets want to fake a sense of balance, they just toss softball questions to the sharpest Heartland Rep they can get, while in a nearby pane having some awkward and uncharismatic scientist justify the entire existence of peer review and respond to accusatory statements about funding. It's like a game to them, but if they can sway public opinion enough to kill regulations, then the captains of industry (e.g. Koch brothers) who funded the tank in the first place win; their investment pays off.

Not all science is money. But there is certainly money to be made. Weapons, pharmaceuticals, climate research is all big business now. The average scientist may not make money, but many are making quite the career.

Sure, if they're being paid by the Heartland Institute they're making good money. It might be hard to call them "scientists" at that point however.

Seriously, can we nip this bullshit currently repeated by JonTech and Ragnarredbeard that Climate science and climate researchers, by and large, are fudging or shaping results * for the money *.

This is a VERY good idea. Open suggestion to the Ars writers: What would be great is if there could be a study done on how much the average scientist working on climate change issues makes a year. Be sure to factor stuff in like how much their education cost, and what sort of grant money is really available. And then, if possible, compare that to what some of the more prominent climate change deniers make.